is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with our 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? - your data, too. there's even round-the-clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. it's happening. get started for $49 a month. plus, ask how to get up to a $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! when it comes to the colonel tiles facing donald trump, timing is everything, specifically more time. and by taking up this claim of presidential immunity, trump's friends on the supreme court just threw him a major lifeline in the form of a delay. in these big moments involving the courts and the rule of law,

there is no one i like talking to more than congressman jamie raskin. like for us, he's here in studio and he's coming up first. plus we'll ask the law firm of weissmann and cotula how all of this might impact the classified documents case down in florida. also today, dueling visit to the southern border, as the former president fires up the few machine. i'm gonna ask beto o'rourke what democrats should be doing about it. and later, mitch mcconnell announces he will leave his leadership position later this year. we'll take a deep dive into his legacy and the frankenstein monster he helped create. ♪ ♪ ♪ so in the years since donald trump's third supreme court nominee was confirmed, just weeks before the 2020 election, there has been this big question hanging out there. will they help him? and if so, when will they help them? well, this week, the supreme court announced they were taking up trump's absurd claim of presidential immunity, and in

turn they granted him the thing he converts the most, more time. because when you are running for president to stay out of president, you shouldn't want to stand trial before the election day. and by taking up the case, the court has raised the real prospect that he may not. i mean, for reasons that remain completely unclear, they will not even hear oral arguments until a full seven weeks from now. so trump's election interference trial, that at one point, by the way, was scheduled to start tomorrow, is now being pointed months down the calendar. and yes, i know that the wheels of justice can move slowly. i made this point myself many times. but guess what, the supreme court can move very quickly when it wants to. let me give you a few examples. let's take bush v. gore in 2000. the court decided the election in three days. we don't even need to look that far back for more examples. this very court, same members of the court, this very year, moved quickly in a separate case related to trump, when he asked these same justices to

take up the colorado case regarding his ballot eligibility. they agreed, two days later, and scheduled arguments for the following month. that is downright speedy, if i do say so. and they had chances to move with similar urgency here, even more so. they could've taken up this issue back in december, when jack smith urge them to consider his emergency appeal and keep the trial on schedule. but of course, they did not. they waited until this week to announce they would take up the case, and they will wait until late april to even hear the oral arguments. they know exactly what this means for the trial schedule. they have a calendar, and they didn't anyway. since the spring court may not claim there in the political business, but they just knowingly put the country in a position where people may not know if they are voting for a criminal conviction -- that's injecting yourself into politics, i'm not sure what is. we don't know for certain if there will be a trial november. there could be, there's a very real chance we could still see one. and we will talk about that today. at the same time, we are also

facing a harsh but important reality that's important to call out. we cannot depend on the justice system protecting us from the day one dictator. there is no fairytales or anything. and yes it's true if trump does not stand trial before this election of the crime of trend over the last one because of a court that he helped shape the help of three members, and then that would be when the great miscarriages of justice in the history of our country. but there is another extremely important thing to remember here. we all know what he did. there is no doubt about the basic facts, in any of these cases, really. like, we talk about the insurrection unfold on television. we saw the photos of the boxes of classified documents in his bathroom. we heard the tape of him on the phone asking the georgia secretary of state to find him votes. even trump's claim of presidential immunity tells us that he has no interest in disputing the facts. that's not his argument. it's never been i didn't do it. it's always been i did it, and

i was allowed to. that's his argument. so the american people deserve trials before election, of course they do, they should not need them in any of these cases to know what he did and to know the danger he poses to democracy and to our rights. look, there are the people who are always going to vote for him, convictions or no convictions, there is no question about that. the question now is about the rest of us. the rest of us know what happened. the rest of us know what he did. the rest of us see what the choices between these two candidates. we could still get a trial before november. but we might not. either way, voters will have to defend our country on election day. casting a ballot will be the most powerful anecdote to the threat of donald front. joining me now is someone i love talking to about the rule of law, courts, everything, congressman jamie raskin. he led the second impeachment trial of trump, he's now the ranking democrat on the house oversight committee. so i know you have a lot of thoughts on what transpired this week, but i just want to start with -- because i'm sure you thought about this, it takes

for justices to decide to take up a case. and when they take up a case, they don't have to take up cases, of course, they decide to not take up cases plenty of time. they are sort of throwing out a notion that this is an open question. how do you think about? that >> this was an obvious case not to take up until just let the d.c. circuit court ruling stand . it's a completely exhaustive and totally compelling decision, saying that the claim that the president can escape criminal prosecution for criminal acts that he commits in office is utterly antithetical to everything we know about our constitution. we don't have a king here, we had a revolution against a king . and the constitution was written that the presidents main job is to take care of the flaws or faithfully execute it, not fitfully violated in his own interest. >> and history tells us as well. i've been trying to figure this out. i don't know if you have an answer for us, but they could've decided back in september, when jack smith asked them to decide if they want to take up this case, they could've decided then to do it or not.

why did you think they didn't? >> if they really wanted to pronounce on this complete banality, this totally obvious point, they could've taken it up in december and sent it back a day or two later. and at this point, i don't want to be crying over spilled milk, but they are going to hear it on april 22nd. i hope that we will get a decision from the court april 23rd or 24th. because as we saw in bush versus gore, they can move it, josh hawley type speed when they want to get something done. and in bush versus gore, i think they render their opinion the day after oral argument. and that's what america should expect here. >> now, there is one theory here that the reason it's been so delayed is that there is a dissent, that someone thinks that presidents are immune, or more than one person. do you think that on this court? >> what they did is they open up the question to something much larger than what needs to be decided. the very specific question is if a president engages in insurrectionary activity in

order to overthrow an election, one that he's lost by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral college, is he immune from criminal prosecution for criminal acts undertaken in pursuit of that plan? well, that's a very specific and clean question. this court has always insisted that it is a minimal court. it wants to look at the most specific question. but, here they open it up to the far broader question of the president engages in some actions that lead to criminal prosecution. is he subject to them, depending on the definition of what his unofficial act and what is not? >> these justices know their powers are. they know the court scheduled, they know the calendar. do you look at this court and thinks some of these justices may want to delay these trials? >> yeah, i think if you don't believe that, you are too innocent to be let out of the house by yourself at this point. this is a court driven by both

trump nominees and bush nominees and neither -- of those guys -- presidents and they have been driving very hard to overturn a whole series of precedents that americans have come to take for granted, like roe v. wade. and we are still dealing with the tremendous aftershock of the dobbs decision, as america weeks up to the fact that it's right wing state legislatures in a lot of states right now that are deciding the destiny of women. >> yeah, activism has influence, there's no question about that. they are not free from influence. so i want to repeat this, because it's so important, i will talk about this later in the show, too, the department of justice 60 date rule does not prevent a trial from moving forward in september in october. because he's already been indicted. -- we've been watching judge chutkan, she's going to be under tremendous pressure to decide if it should move forward . one, would you be accountable with the trial moving forward in

september and october if we get? there it is close to the election. and what do you think she will? >> look, i think that the rule of law should proceed. if trials had been set, if there is a trial set for monday, for tomorrow, they should proceed without totally unusual, indeed, extraordinary intervention by the supreme court. having said that, i don't want to build up the trial in d.c. to be the be all and and all of this process. donald trump already owes more than $500 million because he's been cooking the books and lying about the value of his properties in new york. he has already been found to be responsible by unanimous jury of his peers for sexually assaulting, raping -- >> and then defaming someone. >> and then defending the woman he raped, repeatedly defaming her. so i don't want to build it up like, well, if we get this decision, none america will be able to do the right thing. but without it, the american

electorate will have to disregard everything we know about donald trump, who is a vicious self promoter and narcissist and somebody who is constantly in spectacular disrespect of the rule of law. and he is no program for the country other than to get him and his family back into office so they can revive there -- >> this is also true and so important for people to hear what you just said, that we know a lot about him already. he's done these things in broad daylight, and he is already being convicted in some cases that really should make people question. >> and i've got to say, i have friends on the hill who say they don't want to see him on trial six weeks or eight weeks before the election, because he loves nothing better than to strike the pose of the murder. he's in all these prosecutions because of the offenses he committed, but he would love to say look what happened in the right before the election. >> do you worry about that, or do you think just let us see

where it, is and they should have the ability to move forward if they are at that point? >> it's hard to remember what it was like. but it would be nice to think about the rule of law as something be separate from the campaign process. and of course, donald trump has merged them in his in amicable way simply because he's a one- man crime wave. and there's so many crimes in so many civil torts and wrongful actions out there that his past is coming back to haunt him. >> yeah, no question. part of trump's desire to delay here, as you and i have talked about many times, is he wants to get into office so he can and the trials or and the legal challenges against him by using any means possible. do you worry that if these trials are delayed to the point where he gets into office it will incentivize him to stay in office even longer? >> oh, sure. public officer him is just a get out of jail free card, and bankruptcy protection. it's all about what is going to benefit him. >> yeah, so to personally avoid jail, to avoid paying money, he could avoid that.

i do want to turn to another topic here, there's plenty going, on you must be very tired because you've been doing a lot. but your colleagues on the oversight committee, you know the ones i'm talking about, they brought in hunter biden this week for a closed-door deposition, after he said he would do it publicly. now they want him to go back and do it publicly, it's all completely ludicrous. but this is just a week after we found out that their key witness has been receiving information from russian sources . does this surprise -- >> alexander smirnov started the whole thing with the so-called 1023 form. so he said hunter and joe biden got $10 million between them from burisma in ukraine. now, david weiss, the u.s. attorney appointed by donald trump in delaware, who's now the special counsel in the hunter biden case, he is prosecuting and has indicted --

>> smirnov! >> smirnov for lying to the fbi and conducting a false documentary record, and he is up to his neck with russian intelligence. and the whole thing now has a very strong with of a russian active measure intelligence op. >> your colleagues are barreling forward. at a certain point, they are becoming russian, unwittingly, becoming russian assets. >> after heralding this guy as their key star witness, now they are saying, oh, he did not have much to do with, it we've got a lot of other evidence. but right now, we've got a potential russian asset or agent in jail for making up lies and telling them to the u.s. government. we've got another of their star witnesses who is an accused accomplished to chinese intelligence, who's on the lamb, that the u.s. government is looking for. and every one of their star witnesses turns out to either be deeply suspect and in entrenched in russian or chinese intelligence are just a

buffoon, like tony bubble lynskey. >> you cannot make it up, it's a movie. congressman jamie raskin, thank you so much for coming, and great talking with you. and coming up, judge aileen cannon said something in court that leads andrew weissmann to believe she is biased or naive or both. the law firm of weissmann and katyal is standing by to discuss the big news of the classified documents case when we come back.

okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) watch your step! that's why visionworksgrams makes it simple protein. to schedule an eye exam that works for you. even if you have a big trip to plan around. thanks! i mean, i can see you right now if that's...convenient.

visionworks. see the difference. we really don't want people to think of feeding food like ours is spoiling their dogs. good, real food is simple. it looks like food, it smells like food, it's what dogs are supposed to be eating. ♪ liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. that's great. i know, i've bee telling everyone. baby: liberty. oh! baby: liberty. how many people did you tell? only pay for what you need.

jingle: ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ baby: ♪ liberty. ♪

so the federal election case is not the only one in which jack smith is facing headwinds in the form of attempted delays. on friday, donald trump and smith were both in federal court on florida, where the respective teams clashed over whether the classified documents trial should be held before or after the november election. of course, that's the case overseen by judge aileen cannon, who is why they viewed as a trump loyalist and has been rebuked twice by the 11th circuit for rulings that were overly sympathetic to the former president. and while cannon didn't circle

a date on the calendar for friday's hearing, she did drop some serious hints that she plans to delay trump's trial. more proactively, she brought up the doj's 60-day rule, which prohibits the department of justice from taking action that could affect upcoming elections. now, to be clear, that is an internal guidelines that applies to criminal investigations and charging decisions, not trials. but i suspect you will be hearing that argument from trump loyalists over and over again in the coming months. judge cannon should know it's a moot point. but smith's team still had explained to her they are in full compliance with her own departments policies. basically, that's not a thing. joining me now is our in-house law firm, neal katyal as the former acting u.s. solicitor general, andrew weissmann is the former general counsel at the fbi and senior member of special counsel robert mueller's team, and they are with us for two blocks today, which i am thrilled that i. andrew, i will start with you. let's just start by establishing the 60-day rule in this trial is not a thing.

can you explain what the doj rule actually is and also your level of concern that judge cannon, who should know better, would ask about it and raise it? >> sure, there are two issues with judge cannon raising it. first of all, it's an internal rule. it is not a law. it is not something that gives any rights to any defendant. and judge cannon had been at the justice department, she knows that. so the idea that she raised it is issue number one, that sort of red flag number one as to why is she even raising something that is just internal department guidance. that guidance could be changed by merrick garland any day of the week. second, the rule does not apply . for anyone who has been in the justice department, this is such a red herring. this is why it is completely wrong. that rule is intended so that the justice department does not take action in a covert case that is suddenly overt shortly

before an election. why? because you don't want to influence the election when that person, the candidate, does not have an opportunity to get to trial. they won their day in court, just show that these allegations by the justice department are wrong. why is that inapplicable here? these are overt allegations where the justice department is actually asking for a day in court so the defendant has that opportunity to refute these allegations. it could not be more wrong headed. so issue number two for judge cannon is how she does not know that, as someone who is in the justice department, even if you just look at the rule, you know it does not apply here. so those are two things that are really concerning about why she even raised this issue in a court of law. >> and maybe she doesn't know, it as you raise. so if you know cannons actions, you also know very well the power of judges. how confident are you that the documents case will go to trial before november? there are other means to delay,

judges have power to do that. >> first of all, this big picture, jen, i think donald trump had his best legal week in years. and it's because of what we were talking about with judge cannon on the hearing on friday but also because of the supreme court, the -- january 6th immunity case with a really slow timeline to hear it. and if you started the show with , timing is everything. so with respect to judge cannon -- this is a case that is really straightforward, but unfortunately so far, she has forged a long and winding path toward it being resolved. and you know, there is a reason why donald trump attacks every single judge in the country who's hearing his cases besides her, because so far she has been willing to bend the rule of law to help him out. now, i take this 60 dating a little bit differently than andrew. he's absolutely right on the substance of the rule, it does not apply at all. but sometimes judge asked those kinds of questions just to make sure and the like.

and you know, maybe hope springs eternal. but my hope is that i love to see judge cannon do the right thing. after all, donald trump asked for a august trial date in this case well before the election last week, let's give him what he wants. i was national security adviser at the justice department, where i saw these kinds of cases. there is no reason for it to take longer. and sometimes judges defy expectations. remember when judge cannon made those kind of crazy rulings last year in the case of appointing a special master and the like. it went up to the 11th circuit court of appeals and people said, oh, they are gonna be hopelessly biased for trump. they rebuked her unanimously. and my hope is that something similar will happen here, that judge cannon sets this for trial, the american public deserves to know what happened with all these very highly classified stolen documents. >> i mean, neal, we love a little hope on this show. okay andrew, i have to ask you, because the immunity conversation just feels like it's overlapping everywhere. so the washington post also

raise the alarming prospect, to me at least, that judge cannon could decide to hold up proceedings pending a supreme court decision on immunity. even though that appeal stems from an entirely different case. help us understand, could she do that? what do you think of the possibility of that? >> well, she could do it. but let me just make sure people understand why it would be so really insane. not only are the all these issues about it should not apply in the d.c. case, which deals with conduct by trump when he was in office, when he was president. but here, the charges relate to conduct when he's out of office. so his claim is that i was allowed to. i was legally allowed to take these documents to mar-a-lago. of, course the charges are about what he did when they are in mar-a-lago and he was no longer president. this is like somebody robbing a bank using a gun, shooting the guard, but saying i legally had the gun. >> that's quite an analogy. i'm going to reuse that.

okay, neal, andrew, stick around, don't go anywhere, don't turn off your cameras. i have several more questions for you. we'll be right back after a quick break. we'll be right bac quick break. that's why he switched to dovato. dovato is a complete hiv treatment for some adults. no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: leo learned that most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. if you have hepatitis b, don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide. this can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. if you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. serious or life-threatening lactic acid buildup and liver problems can occur. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems, or if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. dovato may harm an unborn baby. most common side effects are headache, nausea, diarrhea, trouble sleeping, tiredness, and anxiety. detect this:

you could stay undetectable with fewer medicines. ask your doctor about dovato. so this is pickleball? it's basically tennis for babies, but for adults. it should be called wiffle tennis. pickle! yeah, aw! whoo! ♪♪ these guys are intense. we got nothing to worry about. with e*trade from morgan stanley, we're ready for whatever gets served up. dude, you gotta work on your trash talk. i'd rather work on saving for retirement. or college, since you like to get schooled. that's a pretty good burn, right? got him. good game. thanks for coming to our clinic, first one's free. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt.

what do i see in peter dixon? nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. i see my husband... the father of our girls. i see a public servant. a man who served under secretary clinton in the state department... where he took on the epidemic of violence against women in the congo. i see a fighter, a tenacious problem-solver... who will go to congress and protect abortion rights and our democracy. because he sees a better future for all of us. i'm peter dixon and i if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect. new parodontax active gum repair breath freshener. clinically proven to help reverse the four signs of early gum disease. a new toothpaste from parodontax, the gum experts. with nurtec odt, i can treat a migraine when it strikes and prevent migraine attacks, all in one. don't take if allergic to nurtec. allergic reactions can occur,

even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. ask about nurtec odt. with his appeal to the supreme court, donald trump is trying to put himself above the law. in his argument that even a former president is immune from prosecution not only defies logic, it defies history as well. back in 1974, president gerald ford made the difficult decision to pardon his predecessor richard nixon for any potential crimes arising from watergate. of course, by trump's logic, nixon already would have been immune from criminal prosecution, making that pardon totally unnecessary. so i guess forward should've saved insult a little bit of a headache there. but the thing is forward issues that pardon precisely because presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution. and the text of the pardon made that view crystal clear. it says, quote, as a result of

certain acts occurring before his resignation from the office of president, richard nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the united states. even as a former president, nixon was still culpable for the crimes he committed while he was in office. so let's be real here, no president would ever need a pardon if they are entitled to the kind of immunity trump is now claiming. and yet trump him self was believed he would need one when he was facing criminal liability from bob mueller in 2018. trump did not claim he was immune. he claimed he could pardon himself. >> on the pardon power, do you believe that you are above the law? >> no, no, not above the law. i never want anybody to be above the law. but the pardons are a very positive thing for a president. i think you see the way i'm using that. and yes, i do have an absolute right to pardon myself. >> so it raises the question, why would trump even consider a pardon for himself if he was

already immune from prosecution? and we are back with neal katyal and andrew weissmann. andrew, i hope that is not give you some trauma. i'm sure you remember that moment from 2018. but -- present day, the whole immunity argument is contrived solely so trump could evade justice. i mean, what does it say in your view about the court that they are considering it? it makes it a open question. >> that's true. i think though that something that you said in the opening and neal alluded to, the timeline that the court set makes it really clear to me that they took this case to delay the trial. and stay with me here, because i think there are sort of two things to keep an eye on. one is the timeline for deciding the sole issue that's before the supreme court, which is this immunity question. what is not before the court, what was not supposed to be before the court is the trial date. >> mm-hmm. >> on the immunity issue, both parties should have an interest in having that decided as quickly as possible. the government of course,

because they've an interest in going to trial quickly and keeping the date that should've been tomorrow. and i defended that she should be saying there should not even be criminal charges means every day there are those pending criminal trials, he is suffering through an opprobrium of a criminal case. so both parties had an interest in deciding this quickly. so why did the government say yes and donald trump say no, slow walk this, and the court agreed, this is really a slow process. they could've taken the case, as you pointed out with jamie raskin, months ago. so the timeline that they have set where they could've decided this long ago is one that really deals with the trial date, which is not in front of them. and i hope that is right, that there ultimately is a trial before the election. but they have certainly put that prospect in grave doubt. >> it's such an important point, andrew, as you explain, it just here, it they are weighing in on the trial, the timing of

this trial by doing this. and i never thought about it that way. so neal, let's get into that. because federal prosecutor -- who you've been on tv with makes the case in politico that trump's election trial can start before november, as it should, but he says it will fall to judge chutkan to make some difficult choices with no real president. this kind of goes to the power and decision-making of judges. knowing what you know about judge chutkan, how do you think she will handle the timetable, the pressure from everyone, once the supreme court rules? >> just to pick up on what andrew said, jen, there's kind of two issues. one is the merits of the appeal before the supreme court. does a president have absolute immunity for criminal acts? that's preposterous. there is no way donald trump is going to win that. but the second thing ankush khardori says is the timing, that they've taken such a long slow walk that maybe the court is expectedly going to rule for donald trump i just slow

walking the case and running out the clock before the election. but what that piece argues and what i believe is that the supreme court, and you heard congressman raskin say it, should decide the case quickly after april 22nd. the congressman said april 23rd. i think that might be a little aggressive, but certainly the first week of may. and then it goes to judge chutkan, who does have the ability to schedule this trial, and judge cannon, of course in the other case, but for the election. judge chutkan has says she would like to give donald trump 88 days for trial prep. but she said that a long time ago, before trump had all this extra time by dint of this absolute immunity appeal he's made. so that's one actor that could speed things up. and the other actor's jack smith, who had said the trial may take 2 to 3 months, but he said that again a long time ago. and he could shorten it and make it four weeks, the presentation of it, and move more quickly and the. like so is still more possible for the trial to occur before the election. indeed, i think it's an

imperative in our democracy that it has to do. but i very much share andrews concern that the slow walking by the supreme court makes that more difficult . >> makes it that much more difficult. neal katyal, andrew weissmann, thank you so much, as always. i expect we will be hearing a lot more from the body over the coming days. i look for it to. it and coming, up president biden and donald trump visit the border on the same date, creating quite a split screen moment, but completely different messages. i'll just say trump's efforts to re-brand is racism is something we should all be paying attention to. former congressman beto o'rourke is standing by with his reaction after a quick break. er a quick break.

(marci) so, how long have you lived here? (opponent) over forty years. (marci) and how are the restaurants around here? are they good, bad, meh? what's the average household income? is there a mall? i don't know. a hair salon? where do you get your hair done? (opponent) you gonna move, or what? (marci) oh, i'm sorry. it's a lovely neighborhood. (luke) marci, we've gotta go. (marci) i'm coming! (luke) we've got seventeen thousand more parks to visit. (marci) you wanna give me a hand? (luke) we bring you the best neighborhood info.

(vo) ding dong! homes-dot-com. when enamel is gone, you cannot get it back. but you can repair it with pronamel repair. it penetrates deep into the tooth to actively repair acid weakened enamel. i recommend pronamel repair. with new pronamel repair mouthwash you can enhance that repair beyond brushing. they work great together. (♪♪) some people just know that the best rate for you is a rate based on you. not paul. you don't want to ride with paul. get a rate based on you with drivewise in the allstate app.

did you ever worry we wouldn't get to enjoy this? [jeff laughs maniacally] (inner monologue) seriously, i'm on the green and all i can think about is all the green i'm spending on 3 kids in college. with empower, i get all of my financial questions answered. so i don't have to worry. empower. what's next. this week, president biden and donald trump both visited the southern border. they did it on the same day, and it turned into one of those

split screen moments. and watching it unfold, i was struck by the fact that these troops were not at all about their policy differences. i mean, when trump killed a bipartisan border deal negotiated by a conservative republican with a lot of what they wanted, it was pretty clear he didn't care about solving the real issues at the border. for him, this issue is not about policy, it's about fear, fear of the other, of anyone who appear is different in any way from the overwhelmingly white maga base. and this is nothing new for trump. he has been running on this message since 2015. but this time, he's actually re- branding is racism. >> biden migrant crime, it's a new form of vicious violation to our country. >> we have a new category of crime in our country, it's called migrant crime. >> biden migrant crime, but it's too long. so we just call migrant crime. >> it's called migrant crime, and it's going to be worse than any other form of crime. >> we call migrant crime. i came up with that name,

because i come up with a lot of good names. >> migrant crime. i mean, like he's unveiling a new product, by the way, that's how he's pitching it. and like the rest of his failed business ventures, we know that donald trump likes to make claims, even when he might know they are false, he's got a long history of that. his so-called migrant crime wave is just not happening. it's a lie. and nbc news analysis released just this week found that crime is actually drop in the cities that have received the most migrants on the southern border. sorry trump, your product is a little sketchy. but for trump, this issue has never been about the facts, it's about -- fanning fear. unfortunately, that might be working a little bit. according to the latest gallup poll, americans are most likely to say immigration is the most important problem today, even more than the economy and inflation. so where does that leave us and what should democrats be doing about it? joining me now is former democratic congressman from texas beto o'rourke, who has thought about this a lot, talked, spoke out about it a lot. so i want to start just by

getting your thoughts on this description by trump of trump at the border. and this is what he said. mr. trump cast himself as a battle-tested leader, ready to fend off an invasion by hordes of fighting age men who look like warriors. i mean, that's quite a description. he's describing essentially where you live, what you represented. what do you make of him describing border communities that, way essentially like a war zone? >> you know, el paso, texas, where i am from, has consistently been one of the safest cities in america, if not the safest city in america some years in america. and that is not in spite of the fact that we are a city of immigrants. i would argue it is because we are a city of immigrants. but with the kind of rhetoric that you are repeating that donald trump has used, he has incited so much hatred and violence. and we saw that in 2019 in el paso, when someone echoing trump's rhetoric came to our community, walked into a walmart, and slaughtered 23

people in a matter of minutes, claiming that he was repelling the invasion of hispanics who are trying to take over the state of texas. it is a reminder of the cruelty and chaos we saw under trump. in addition to the el paso shooting, we had the muslim ban, we had family separation, we had kids in cages, and he did nothing to address the real issues at the border or to make the most of the opportunities we have an immigration. and as you pointed out, he has also just blown up the border security deal that very conservative republican members of the senate negotiated, with president biden accepting almost every one of the planks of the platform. and he's also telling us what he's going to do if he is reelected and serves a second term. he is talking about immigrants poisoning the blood of america. that is a line that could be lifted out of mein kampf. he's talking about a mass deportations and raids and detention centers, these gestapo tactics to instill even more fear, hatred and violence.

and i think the president is doing a good job of reminding america of the danger of donald trump. but there is one more thing, jen , that i think president biden can do, and i really think he should do. and that is to remind this country of who we are at our best. we are a country of immigrants. we are the most powerful, most successful place on the planet. and it has a lot to do with those who have come here from all over the world, to do better for themselves, yes, but also to do better for all of us. and we will only remain the most successful country on the planet by ensuring that we have more immigrants coming here. i think finding safe, legal, orderly pathways for people to come here and work, some of the millions of jobs that are currently going unfilled, to be able to join their families to strengthen and renew our communities, that's a positive for america. fighting for those dreamers, making sure they are citizens in absolutely unleashing their potential, and then finding a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented here

who are already contributing so much to our economy, working some of the toughest jobs in america. imagine what they can do if they were legal citizens in this country. i would love to see him make that case. and i know the polls might be pointing in a different direction, but leaders don't follow polls. they lead this country and they helped shape public opinion. and the president, through the bully pulpit, has an extraordinary opportunity to do that right now. and i think that's the best possible contrast to donald trump. donald trump. point. i wanted to ask you about this. it feels to me, you live in a border community. the messaging has changed on immigration. it has become an issue that is now led by security threats and not by the humanity side. not by the morality side. it sounds like we are hearing more of that to. i also wanted to ask you about immigration that is now -- every full can be different. it is an issue that is top of mind for the country right now. do you think that is because of

politics, because a fearmongering, because of policy issues? what do you attribute that to? >> i think it has a lot to do with your monger and politics. on an issue like economy or inflation, it is very hard to spin what people are feeling. we know how much -- costs or filling up the take in our car. you can't really trick us or confuses on that. unless you are an immigrant or you live in a city like el paso or you have been daily encounter with an immigrant, immigration is something that you are told how to feel about. donald trump is telling you that there is an invasion. he's telling you there are animals, and if the station, criminals, rapists, people coming to attack you. he's talking about this in military terms. i really think he is successfully, unfortunately, shaping public opinion on this issue. that's why it is so important for president biden to stand tall on these issues and say, hold on a second. immigrants are part of what makes this country so extraordinary and so great. we are not doing them a favor

by ensuring there's a legal pathway for them to come here. they're going to supercharge our economy. they are going to be paying into social security and medicare to make sure those programs are solvent in the next century and they are going to renew the greatness of this country. i think this is a perfect contrast for the president to strike. i think if he does not do that, and he's only talking about security or shutting the border down, if voters are choosing between someone who is absolutely made his name on his cruelty and security bona fides, at least in terms of what he says he will do, he's failing to do that in donald trump. someone who's doing a lighter version in that with president biden, i don't think we're that. to win when it present hibiden can, st louis, and security is dependent on legal pathways to come here. folks are going to try to come to goamerica. let's make sure they do it the right way. as president, i'm going to lean on that now. in my second administration, i will, for the first-time, since ronald reagan, make prop comprehensive immigration reform my number one party and finally get this ondone for america.

>> lots -- security is important, morality is important, humanity is important. all that is wrapped rtup. i know he feels that way. really important guidance from you on all of that. thank you so much for joining us on this afternoon. coming up, as mitch mcconnell announces his plans to step aside as the senate republican leader, we will take a look at his legacy and the makeup monster he helped create. we've been working on this all week. it's coming up next. all week. it's coming up next. the lungs and lower airways. but i'm protected with arexvy. arexvy is a vaccine used to prevent lower respiratory disease from rsv in people 60 years and older. rsv can be serious for those over 60, including those with asthma, diabetes, copd, and certain other conditions. but i'm protected. arexvy is proven to be over 82% effective in preventing lower respiratory disease from rsv and over 94% effective in those with these health conditions.

arexvy does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients. those with weakened immune systems may have a lower response to the vaccine. the most common side effects are injection site pain, fatigue, muscle pain, headache, and joint pain. i chose arexvy. rsv? make it arexvy. (man) excuse me, would you mind taking a picture of us? (tony) oh, no problem. (man) thanks. (tony) yes, problem. you need verizon. trade-in that old thing and get a new iphone 15 pro with tons of storage. so you can take all the pics! so many selfies. a preposterous amount of pano! that means panoramic. and as many portraits of me as your heart desires.

(woman) how about none? (boy) none. (man) yea none feels right. (vo) trade-in any iphone in any condition and get a new iphone 15 pro and an ipad and apple watch se all on us. only on verizon. an alternative to pills, voltaren is a clinically proven arthritis pain relief gel, which penetrates deep to target the source of pain with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicine directly at the source. voltaren, the joy of movement. - bye, bye cough. - later chest congestion. hello 12 hours of relief. 12 hours!! mucinex dm gives you 12 hours of relief

from chest congestion and any cough, day or night. mucinex dm. it's comeback season. now try mucinex instasoothe sore throat medicated drops. always dry scoop before you run. listen to me, the hot dog diet got me shredded. it's time we listen to science. one a day is formulated with key nutrients to support whole body health. one a day. science that matters.

as you all know, this, week mitch mcconnell announced he would step down from leadership later this year, ending his tenure as the longest serving -- serving senator in history. which makes now a prp moment, taking a deep dive into is like a. see specifically, his unwavering devotion to winning and winning at any cost. now, back in the 1970s, he was publicly's supportive of finance reform. i, now denouncing the cancer of the corrupting influence of money and politics, only to do a complete one 80 in the yunis senate, where he became instrumental in opening up our politics to the flood of special interest money. once upon a time, mcconnell was also obtained supplee a defender of the voting rights act. in the 2004 floor speech, he urged senators to renew what he called, landmark legislation. >> members of congress, realize this is a piece of legislation that has worked and one of my favorite sayings that many others use, if it ain't broke, don't exit. this landmark piece of

legislation will continue to make a difference, not only in the south, but for all of america. >> yet, mcconnell has blocked all attempts to build the law after conservatives on the supreme court, of course, gutted portions in 2013. that includes the john lewis voting rights acts, abolishing some of the rules that was imposed in the 2013 decision, something he was one, sport but now calls unnecessary. now, if you understand mcconnell's cynical drive to win above all else, this all adds up. he was for campaign finance reform, before he realized that opposing it would mean raising far more unrestricted money and that could politically be helpful to him. he was for voting rights, until he realized that suppressing the vote might help republicans win elections. there is no better example of his relentless pursuit of power than what happens in 2016, one for 11 months, he stonewalled the appointment of a new supreme justice under barack obama. he cited brand-new, fabricated,

by the way, reasoning saying, the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice. sounds good, but that didn't last long. that's for just a couple of years to 2020, when he flipped on his own mcconnell role to rush and amy coney barrett into the court just weeks before the election. because it's never been about sticking with principles for him. it's been about power. despite donald trump's obvious ineptitude and moral deficiencies, mcconnell saw him as a means to an end. a republican president who could fill federal courts with conservatives with the crown jewel of a super majority on the supreme court. he got that. here is the thing, mcconnell wrapped up all of those winds well supporting and building up a man that he despises and knows is destructive because he always saw trump as a means to end and. after the january 6th attempt on the capitol, mcconnell reportedly said that he felt exhilarated by the fact that

trump had totally discredited himself. despite publicly saying trump bore responsibility for the attack, mcconnell voted to acquit him. he calculated that trump and that makeup movement were done, that his party would move past them. he was obviously very, very wrong. donald trump will likely be the presidential nominee again. the republican apparatus is unquestionably only back in. can't the conservative supreme court that mcconnell helped engineer even gave trump a big gap this week by pushing back the calendar on this federal election trial. so, mitch mcconnell once, arguably, the most powerful pit figure in republican party, is leaving his post as republican senate leader diminished. that's apparent from the lack of action on new ukraine a, despite his insistence. and his inability to keep his conference together to pass a bipartisan border bill, which taint at the behest of donald trump. yet, despite all of that, mcconnell thinks about trump, which we know, he's already said that if he is the republican nominee, he will

support him. that's that real legacy of mitch mcconnell. a cynic focused on power, only to be swallowed by the monster he enabled to obtain it. we have one more thing to tell you about before we go today. a little hint? it impulsiveness member of congress. we are back after a quick break. are back after a quick break. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪ ♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ( ♪♪) with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and most people were clearer even at 5 years. skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions... ...and an increased risk of infections... ...or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,... ...had a vaccine, or plan to. ♪ nothing and me go hand-in-hand, ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan. ♪

♪ nothing is everything ♪ now's the time,... ...ask your doctor about skyrizi,... ...the number one... ...dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save. it only takes a second for an everyday item to become dangerous. tide pods child-guard pack helps keep your laundry pacs in a safe place and your child safer. to close, twist until it clicks. tide pods child-guard packaging. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure.

rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today.

-- wake up. people are sick and tired of the

finger-pointing and the petty partisan victory. they want us to work together. [applause] >> that was nearly elected congressman tom suozzi, that just won a crucial election in new york to replace none other than george santos. i'm very excited that i will be getting to talk to him tomorrow night, right here at eight pm eastern. it will be the congressman's first and as nbc interview since being sworn in. i will see you tomorrow at eight. for now, stay right where you are. there are much more news coming up on msnbc. this hour on ayman, results from d.c.'s republican primary expected at any moment as nikki haley faces her best and possibly final shot at taking down donald trump. also tonight, the vice president calling for an immediate cease-fire in gaza. how to turn those words into action and what it means for the u.s.